The Frederick St protest and reaction

davo10 · 15-09-2018 12:17PM

end of the road wrote: »

but that seems impossible as we are being told they had their faces covered to protect their identity. so if that is the case, they wouldn't be identified because they have their faces covered. if they are being identified dispite the face covering, then the covering of their faces is redundant.
a badge number would only identify a garda to other gardai, as if there is a database with the list of gardai and their badge numbers, it's not publically accessible. so, if members of the public order unit who were at this eviction are being identified as claimed, then the only way i can see this being possible is down to someone accessing non-public information and leaking it, which is very serious business if that is indeed the case.

then as said they would be wearing the helmet as apparently mandated with the face covering.

they aren't being put at risk. other private security are required to be identifiable in some form. if we are going to have private security carying out evictions, then they should absolutely be identifiable in some form, via a badge etc.
if they don't want to take the risk of being identified, don't do the job. either way, there should not be in any circumstances, completely unidentifiable, hooded men operating in our country in a law enforcement capacity. protesters are members of the public, so them covering their faces is not the same as either a member of gardai, or a member of a defacto law enforcement doing the same, when unnecessary.

You really believe they would not be at risk? Seriously? This wasn't a standard eviction, the protestors got the media/crowd attention they wanted, the situation was hostile.

I'm not sure the security company were acting in a law enforcement capacity, I suspect they were hired by the property owner in a private capacity to remove people from their property. I doubt they were paid by/acting on behalf of the state. They are also private citizens.

The protesters were asked to leave, a court then told them to leave, they counted on a confrontation ensuing, they got it, now you are complaining. Tough.

Yeah_Right · 15-09-2018 12:25PM

The Garda shouldn't have been wearing balaclavas. They should have been wearing gas masks. Tear gas and pepper spray would have cleared the scumbags out very quickly and the private security guys wouldn't need to be involved.

15-09-2018 12:35PM

end of the road wrote: »

we are assuming the gardai would be able to 100% identify them. the hoodies had no badges or anything else either, assuming they were working for a private security firm or for the sheriff or were private bailiffs which is in my opinion a potential threat to the public.

it's a good question. i'd assume so.

i don't know. it's very sinister either way.

no as the eviction is still legal as a court has implemented a court order. it certainly comes across as the gardai supporting sinister dark forces though.

Ridiculous. Gardai are not there supporting anyone.
They always attend evictions, merely to maintain the public peace.
There were only a few Gardai there to begin with, like every eviction. Only when things were getting out of hand, were the public order involved.
Nothing sinister & they would not have been there if it was straightforward.

15-09-2018 01:37PM

bubblypop wrote: »

They always attend evictions, merely to maintain the public peace.

Eh? No, they do not!

Most evictions are perfectly peaceful affairs, even when the occupier is overholding.

tayto lover · 15-09-2018 01:46PM

What was the purpose of the protest anyway as it seems to have got lost in here?
Surely it can have little to do with homelessness as the Dail or Council offices would have been more appropriate places for it.

Loves_lorries · 15-09-2018 02:15PM

I don't support breaking into private property or left wing politicians but I do suspect both FF and FG are in thrall to owners of land in key locations, add to that, I think we need an overhaul of planning law, we need to build high whether people like it or not, you want an open view, live in connemara.

Loves_lorries · 15-09-2018 02:19PM

Anarchists oppose private property full stop but the current situation is a joke, was watching a property show on rte the other night and a gay couple paid 340k for an ugly cottage in North Wall

homerjay2005 · 15-09-2018 02:20PM

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

If this is what the future holds, we should all be worried imo, it's clearly not a welcoming development if this is how we're going to proceed as a functioning democracy.

if anything, its a positive sign for the future of the country that law enforcement is finally taking control of situations where people are breaking the law.

im baffled how anybody has a problem with this - a court order was issued, it was carried out, its over. we move on.

15-09-2018 02:22PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Eh? No, they do not!

Most evictions are perfectly peaceful affairs, even when the occupier is overholding.

Yes they do.
They always have

Seth Brundle · 15-09-2018 02:23PM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

if anything, its a positive sign for the future of the country that law enforcement is finally taking control of situations where people are breaking the law.

im baffled how anybody has a problem with this - a court order was issued, it was carried out, its over. we move on.

But, but, but the gardai were wearing balaclavas, not their hats?!?!

15-09-2018 02:24PM

tayto lover wrote: »

What was the purpose of the protest anyway as it seems to have got lost in here?
Surely it can have little to do with homelessness as the Dail or Council offices would have been more appropriate places for it.

see attached.

One of the protestors was handing these out on Frederick Street a couple of weeks back.

end of the road · 15-09-2018 02:25PM

bubblypop wrote: »

Ridiculous. Gardai are not there supporting anyone.
They always attend evictions, merely to maintain the public peace.
There were only a few Gardai there to begin with, like every eviction. Only when things were getting out of hand, were the public order involved.
Nothing sinister & they would not have been there if it was straightforward.

i have to disagree bubblypop that the non-gardai at that eviction being covered and having no badge (if private security or similar) isn't sinister.

homerjay2005 wrote: »

if anything, its a positive sign for the future of the country that law enforcement is finally taking control of situations where people are breaking the law.

im baffled how anybody has a problem with this - a court order was issued, it was carried out, its over. we move on.

this isn't anything to do with law enforcement taking control of situations where people are breaking the law, of which people are happy over happening. it's about the sinister nature of hoodies being at an eviction along with the gardai, something which it isn't baffling to wonder why people would have an issue with.

McMurphy · 15-09-2018 02:33PM

bubblypop wrote: »

So you have a problem with members of the eru wearing face cover? Because they always do.

No, no problem with them wearing them, in fact I actually posted that very opinion fairly early on in the thread.

What I do have a problem with, are the folk who seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouths depending on how the wind is blowing.

"The masks are needed because someone might put their details on social media/their details were put on social media anyway because their numbers were visible" which in either scenario makes the balaclavas pointless

Then there are the others who can't understand what difference the balaclavas make, as sure unless people personally recognised them, they're unrecognizable anyway. Which also makes them pointless.

No one has a problem that the guards might want anyone to recognise them (embarrassment maybe), it's the dissident Republican/Loyalist looking thugs they're supporting that's the worrying development.

Anyway, the head of the policing authority has said they will be taking it up with the commissioner (who thinks protocol was broke) and Leo apparently is wading in too.

What is it with AGS that they keep making haimes of things?

15-09-2018 02:42PM

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

No, no problem with them wearing them, in fact I actually posted that very opinion fairly early on in the thread.

What I do have a problem with, are the folk who seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouths depending on how the wind is blowing.

"The masks are needed because someone might put their details on social media/their details were put on social media anyway because their numbers were visible" which in either scenario makes the balaclavas pointless

Then there are the others who can't understand what difference the balaclavas make, as sure unless people personally recognised them, they're unrecognizable anyway. Which also makes them pointless.

No one has a problem that the guards might want anyone to recognise them (embarrassment maybe), it's the dissident Republican/Loyalist looking thugs they're supporting that's the worrying development.

Anyway, the head of the policing authority has said they will be taking it up with the commissioner (who thinks protocol was broke) and Leo apparently is wading in too.

What is it with AGS that they keep making haimes of things?

Not there supporting anyone except the peace.
That's their job, no matter how often you say it, doesn't make it true.

Pity the new commissioner is as spineless as all the others & afraid to back up his men instead of licking government butt.

Captain Obvious · 15-09-2018 02:59PM

bubblypop wrote: »

Not there supporting anyone except the peace.
That's their job, no matter how often you say it, doesn't make it true.

Pity the new commissioner is as spineless as all the others & afraid to back up his men instead of licking government butt.

In fairness, the only thin the commissioner said is that the helmet should be worn with the hood. It's not exactly an indictment.

I also find it odd people saying the Gardaí supported the landlords. The Gardaí literally formed a line in the middle. The only people they had contact with were people who tried to cross that line. If the landlords staff had tried to attack the protestors then the Gardaí would have stopped them also. They basically acted like a mirror to aggression and the protestors don't like what that mirror shows.

I don't think I'll ever understand this mentality of trying to pick a fight with the Gardaí whenever there is a protest. I get that they are an easy target, not being able to respond personally to criticism, but how stupid do you have to be to physically and verbally attack them and then give out they are on the wrong side. A professional police force enforces the law and preserves the police. The same people who criticise the Gardaí constantly for not being professional are the people giving out about them enforcing the law and preserving the peace in this instance. it really is a no win situation.

McMurphy · 15-09-2018 03:00PM

bubblypop wrote: »

Not there supporting anyone except the peace.
That's their job, no matter how often you say it, doesn't make it true.

Been said numerous times already, the optics were bad, period.

Pity the new commissioner is as spineless as all the others & afraid to back up his men instead of licking government butt.

Indeed, political policing isn't healthy for a democratic state.

homerjay2005 · 15-09-2018 03:00PM

end of the road wrote: »

he sinister nature of hoodies being at an eviction along with the gardai,

hoodies are sinister now when worn by law enforcers? ive heard it all now

:D:D:D:D..

care to tell us why people who were abused, (1 racially), physically assaulted and everything else, should have to show their faces? so that social media keyboard warriors can plaster their faces all over the internet?

and this was not an eviction, this was a removal of people who were in somewhere they shouldnt have been.

end of the road · 15-09-2018 03:11PM

bubblypop wrote: »

Not there supporting anyone except the peace.
That's their job, no matter how often you say it, doesn't make it true.

Pity the new commissioner is as spineless as all the others & afraid to back up his men instead of licking government butt.

not at all bubblypop, he is backing up his men and isn't spineless. i don't trust him personally but i agree with his comments in relation to this issue. rules are rules and if the commissioner decides that certain protacall hasn't been followed then it hasn't been followed. following protacall is non-negotiable IMO.

homerjay2005 wrote: »

hoodies are sinister now when worn by law enforcers? ive heard it all now ..

care to tell us why people who were abused, (1 racially), physically assaulted and everything else, should have to show their faces? so that social media keyboard warriors can plaster their faces all over the internet?

is there video or any other evidence of this racial abuse and asalt?

homerjay2005 wrote: »

and this was not an eviction, this was a removal of people who were in somewhere they shouldnt have been.

semantics. removal, eviction, both are suitable terms as they involve people being removed from a property.

Captain Obvious · 15-09-2018 03:25PM

end of the road wrote: »

not at all bubblypop, he is backing up his men and isn't spineless. i don't trust him personally but i agree with his comments in relation to this issue. rules are rules and if the commissioner decides that certain protacall hasn't been followed then it hasn't been followed. following protacall is non-negotiable IMO.

Such as obeying court orders?

end of the road wrote: »

is there video or any other evidence of this racial abuse and asalt?

You believe it's a lie?

end of the road wrote: »

semantics. removal, eviction, both are suitable terms as they involve people being removed from a property.

There's a big difference between removing a group of protestors from a commercial property and turfing a family out of the home.

15-09-2018 03:57PM

end of the thread folks

guylikeme · 15-09-2018 04:02PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

end of the thread folks

I declare not!

Reflecting on this incident, i think we can all at least agree that building high rise will fix alot of the issues. Yes there will still be those on both sides with extreme views(the left looking for houses for all, the right saying fk them geta job etc). However, at least it may allow people a realistic chance to live in the city and build a life.

Seth Brundle · 15-09-2018 04:06PM

guylikeme wrote: »

I declare not!

Reflecting on this incident, i think we can all at least agree that building high rise will fix alot of the issues. Yes there will still be those on both sides with extreme views(the left looking for houses for all, the right saying fk them geta job etc). However, at least it may allow people a realistic chance to live in the city and build a life.

Building upwards won't necessarily make cheaper homes but will allow people to live near places if work which reduces commuting times and therefore improve quality of life, air, etc.
However it won't remove the selfish sense of entitlement held by so many out there!

guylikeme · 15-09-2018 06:32PM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Building upwards won't necessarily make cheaper homes but will allow people to live near places if work which reduces commuting times and therefore improve quality of life, air, etc.
However it won't remove the selfish sense of entitlement held by so many out there!

No political policy will remove cunfts from society but my suggestion would definitely be a step in the right direction.

homerjay2005 · 15-09-2018 06:41PM

end of the road wrote: »

semantics. removal, eviction, both are suitable terms as they involve people being removed from a property.

lets just say as an example, it was somebody elderly in your family that owned a large house somewhere in Dublin, been in the family for 5 or 6 generations.

last few years, they were in nursing home, but every few months came out to spend sometime in the house - otherwise it was unused. one weekend, a group of people break into the house and occupy it illegally. your family cannot get them to leave.

you've tried mediation - they wont leave.
you've got the guards around - they wont leave.
you go to court - they still wont leave, so you get a court order to evict them - they still dont leave.

would you be so sympathetic then and dismiss the actions as "people being removed from a property"?

its amazing how people seem to be more upset about a few lads wearing head gear (and that allegedly some van had no tax on it) than condemn the fact that people broke the law.

20Cent · 15-09-2018 06:44PM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

lets just say as an example, it was somebody elderly in your family that owned a large house somewhere in Dublin, been in the family for 5 or 6 generations.

last few years, they were in nursing home, but every few months came out to spend sometime in the house - otherwise it was unused. one weekend, a group of people break into the house and occupy it illegally. your family cannot get them to leave.

you've tried mediation - they wont leave.
you've got the guards around - they wont leave.
you go to court - they still wont leave, so you get a court order to evict them - they still dont leave.

would you be so sympathetic then and dismiss the actions as "people being removed from a property"?

its amazing how people seem to be more upset about a few lads wearing head gear (and that allegedly some van had no tax on it) than condemn the fact that people broke the law.

Your imaginary scenario that didn't happen isn't much use to the discussion is it.

davo10 · 15-09-2018 06:57PM

20Cent wrote: »

Your imaginary scenario that didn't happen isn't much use to the discussion is it.

You are missing the point.

The people that the protestors are trying to get support from could be concerned about this scenario along with a multitude of others. This wasn't an abandoned property or owned by Nama, this was a property owned by a citizen of the state which to my knowledge, has no history whatsoever of abuse. To those watching the pictures on TV, it looked like a bunch of college students picked a building that was empty at random, and occupied it. They admitted they knew absolutely nothing about the owner.

Next time it could be an empty building that the owner can't afford to renovate at the moment, or can't get planning, or Aunt Jane's house who has been in a nursing home for 5 years.

3 days later this story is on life support with zero public sympathy for the protesters. What little public interest there is, is about balaclavas, not the housing crisis. Next time the security firm will be more careful and there will be even less support.

15-09-2018 07:04PM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

lets just say as an example, it was somebody elderly in your family that owned a large house somewhere in Dublin, been in the family for 5 or 6 generations.

Why though?

The owner of the house on Frederick Street is an accountant who lives in Dublin 4, not some doddery old dear who comes out of the County Home once in a blue moon to reminisce about the tenements.

The owner of the house on Summerhill Parade is a well-known slum landlord, who had previously been piling 6-8 tenants to individual rooms in that property, before those tenants were evicted, allegedly illegally.

davo10 · 15-09-2018 07:13PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Why though?

The owner of the house on Frederick Street is an accountant who lives in Dublin 4, not some doddery old dear who comes out of the County Home once in a blue moon to reminisce about the tenements.

The owner of the house on Summerhill Parade is a well-known slum landlord, who had previously been piling 6-8 tenants to individual rooms in that property, before those tenants were evicted, allegedly illegally.

What has his profession got to do with anything? He is a citizen of the state not breaking any law? Is there any evidence he is a slum landlord?

The house in Summerhill is empty, the protesters called for compulsory purchase by the state, so the protesters want us the taxpayers to buy properties costing hundreds of thousands just because they are empty? Where is that money going to come from? I'd prefer it to be spent on the health and education system, not making property owners in Dublin wealthy.

What happened to the 20 Brazilians staying in Summerhill, did the protesters house them? They have probably moved on to another over occupied house where rent is cheap relative to other properties. Also, if you go over to the accommodation forum, you will find cases where LLs have rented their properties only to find out later that there are twice as many people staying there than they were aware of, are they slum landlords?

15-09-2018 07:23PM

davo10 wrote: »

What has his profession got to do with anything? He is a citizen of the state not breaking any law? Is there any evidence he is a slum landlord?

She.

It's relevant in that your analogy to some old dear who's just a bit fond of her property is redundant here.

The house in Summerhill is empty, the protesters called for compulsory purchase by the state, so the protesters want us the taxpayers to buy properties costing hundreds of thousands just because they are empty? Where is that money going to come from?

The same place all compulsory purchase of land comes from, the Central Fund.

What happened to the 20 Brazilians staying in Summerhill, did the protesters house them?

How on earth could the activists have housed 20 students? I assume they are not slum landlords.

Anyway, there were over 100 people evicted in total from the five neighbouring properties owned by the O'Donnells. but who cares, right? Something, something entitlement.

davo10 · 15-09-2018 07:36PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

She.

It's relevant in that your analogy to some old dear who's just a bit fond of her property is redundant here.

The same place all compulsory purchase of land comes from, the Central Fund.

How on earth could the activists have housed 20 students? I assume they are not slum landlords.

Anyway, there were over 100 people evicted in total from the five neighbouring properties owned by the O'Donnells. but who cares, right? Something, something entitlement.

Again, you are missing the big, obvious, elephant sized point. To get public support you need to get their sympathy, but you are not going to get their sympathy if they think this could happen to them or someone like them. People don't have sympathy for banks or vulture funds or Nama because they don't identify with them. A private citizen, professional, worker, doing nothing illegal is someone we all identify with. Hence no sympathy or support from the general populace.

Again you missed the point on the tenants, they were evicted because of over crowding, protesters got involved, got their headlines, clapped themselves on the back, but what happened to the tenants? They got lost in the story, did the protesters do anything for them? I doubt it, it's not their problem, and no headlines in that.

Owned, or formally owned by the O'Donnells? And if the evictions were illegal the tenants could have brought their case to the very tenant leaning RTB, did they?

Every citizen of the state, be they protesters or property owner (which don't forget, tens of thousands are) is entitled to the protection of the law, if they do something illegal, the laws are there to punish them. When one side ignores the law, then they should not be surprised if the state and its citizens use the laws to their benefit, in this case, throwing muppets out.

Not one homeless person in there, it's beyond belief that one of these idiots didn't think to add the powerful effect that would have benefited them in generating public sympathy by having homeless people in there. Instead they had a couple of giggling students with soppy haircuts.

The Frederick St protest and reaction

Comments